A new lawsuit commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York—John Johnson (not an alias) et ano.v. Amazon.com, Inc.,et al. (including some JOHN DOEs)—seems, even at the most preliminary stage, like a good candidate for swift summary judgment. It’s a copyright infringement action with a simple, straightforward complaint.

Seen it? No. No, you have not.

The plaintiffs are an individual and his film production company. They hold the copyright to a motion picture entitled The Curse of the Blue Lights. (You haven’t seen it, I’m sure. If you have, by some remote chance, please let me know in the comments.) The defendants—which include Amazon.com and two wholly-owned subsidiaries thereof and the John Does, meant to stand for non-Amazon entities who are making and selling DVD copies of The Curse of the Blue Lights via Amazon without permission from the plaintiffs to do so, and with packaging that reads… expressly… and the plaintiff quotes: “[not] licensed nor authorized by the original copy right [sic] owners.”

As one might expect, in the 6.5-page complaint, the plaintiff quotes this “disclaimer” language no fewer than three times. It is a fact worth repeating. (Of course, it not only helps establish liability but also paves the way for enhanced damages to punish knowing, willful infringement.)

Reading the complaint reminded me of reading the disclaimers on every third video posted on YouTube, each some variation of “I do not own this video,” sometimes with an (attempted) acknowledgment of who does own the video, the music used, etc.

Cursed by blue lights.

[RHETORICAL QUESTION WARNING] So if it occurs to someone to disclaim ownership of a video or some component(s) of a video that he or she is posting online, then why does it not occur to him or her that the content is not his or hers to post? What, I wonder, do these posters think they’re accomplishing by disclaiming ownership? Immunity from criticism? Maybe. No one likes to be criticized, and especially if the criticism is unwarranted, such as when it points out flaws in the cinematography of, say, a music video that one does not own.

Not that I’d encourage posting—or selling—others’ proprietary works as if they were yours to post or sell, without any disclaimer or acknowledgment, of course. But there’s something just extra offensive, to this blawger’s mind, anyway, about trying to avoid a claim of infringement by simply being upfront about knowing that it’s infringement.

Author:Matthew David Brozik

The question of whether consumers are likely to be confused is the signal inquiry that determines if a trademark infringement claim is valid. This blog is about trademark law, copyright law, free speech (mostly as it relates to the Internet) and legal issues related to blogging.

As for me, I'm a partner and commercial litigator at Archer & Greiner PC* with offices in New York and New Jersey (but active nationwide) and, some say, "IP maven"* with a special interest in copyright and trademark infringement involving the Internet--including advising clients how to avoid them.

For more information, or to learn more about retaining me, please click here.

Then there's this kind of odd thing, and also something called Inspired Sites where this blog is categorized under "Naming / Branding / Language" rather than law, which is, as the young folk say, "kind of cool."

Of course, it's easy to game almost any ranking system -- not that I've tried to... as such. These just are what they are.

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed here are my own, and not necessarily those of Archer & Greiner, P.C.

THIS BLOG IS ONLY A BLOG, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS IN PART AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY ME, RONALD D. COLEMAN, BUT I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT MY CLIENT. JUST WALK BESIDE ME AND BE MY FRIEND.

*The term maven is used to mean "wise guy" here and is not meant to suggest that I am certified or otherwise authorized under bar rules to claim "expertise" in any field of legal practice. But try me.